Anarchist Realism – Anarchy – Errico Malatesta

In order to get a basic understanding of anarchy from a classical perspective we’ve chosen Anarchy by Errico Malatesta. It was written in 1891 and lays out a very solid foundation for what anarchism is and addresses many common misconceptions. The language used necessitates a critique, words like “primitive” and notions of nature being a separate force to wage war against are counter to the ideas of social ecology we have espoused. His use of masculine pronouns throughout to refer to “mankind” is the also problematic. We will address this more when we cover Bookchin later in the series.

We will go chapter by chapter and lay out Malatesta’s ideas with quotes and hopefully we’re able to illustrate why his ideas are so important and why they are still relevant to this day. He starts with an etymology:

The word Anarchy comes from the Greek and its literal meaning is without government: the condition of a people who live without a constituted authority, without government.

Like i said in the last post, the word actually is closer to “without leaders” but the abstraction to government is acceptable. His use of government here is slightly different from some other anarchists. Some anarchists view government to include horizontal social structures in federation. This is not the view Malatesta takes, in this writing he prefers to use government because the word state can be confusing. He says that government is clearer and more precise, so we will follow that for this post.

In the first chapter he states that anarchy has widely been used as a synonym for chaos and disorder, and that it only became a theoretical discipline during his lifetime. He explains that this is because humans adapt to their environment, someone born under capitalism will not only reject any idea that goes against the doctrine of the system, they will fervently defend the systems that exploits and dominates them. But Malatesta assures us that this wont always be the case:

Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity.

In the second chapter he lays out if abolition of government is “possible, desirable or foreseeable” and describes what government actually is. He says government is made of governors who are:

In short, the governors are those who have the power, to a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the social power, that is of the physical, intellectual and economic power of the whole community, in order to oblige everybody to carry out their wishes. And this power, in our opinion, constitutes the principle of government, of authority.

This underlines the basic opposition to authority, that it takes away control of the social power from the people and gives it to a small portion of the population. Malatesta states that even if totally benevolent leaders existed, what purpose would it serve to a community who can self govern. Governments can only exist to constrict and prevent more organic horizontal forms, and each governor has their own self interest that affects their decisions.

In the third chapter he outlines that all theories for the existence of government lay on the belief that people have conflicting interests that must be resolved by a higher power. He says that to understand this theory we must look at the history of government and the functions it served and continues to serve.

There are two ways of oppressing men: either directly by brute force, by physical violence; or indirectly by denying them the means of life and thus reducing them to a state of surrender. The former is at the root of power, that is of political privilege; the latter was the origin of property, that is of economic privilege.

Malatesta speaks about how in “sparsely populated primitive societies with uncomplicated social relations” wherever hierarchy dominated, the political and economic powers were often in the same hands. His use of the word “primitive” is problematic. To better understand what we’re talking about, we choose to use the term organic society to talk about prehistorical populations. This term comes from Bookchin.

After the split of the two powers, the economic privilege gradually overtook the political in power:

And the latter, gradually concentrating in their hands the means of production, the real sources of life, agriculture, industry, barter, etc., end up by establishing their own power which, by reason of the superiority of its means, and the wide variety of interests that it embraces, always ends by more or less openly subjecting the political power, which is the government, and making it into its own gendarme.

The political powers became the protectors of the economic powers. This is still true today, where the urban police’s main initiative is the protection of property rights. Malatesta states that when the capitalist class gained power, it demanded a “government should arise from its own ranks.”

That government was indeed the defender, the property owners’ gendarme, but the kind of gendarmes who think they are somebody, and behave in an arrogant manner towards the people they have to escort and defend, when they don’t rob or kill them at the next street corner; and the capitalist class got rid of it

Malatesta speaks of elections as a concession made by the bourgeoise to the people to gain popular support. But that it is largely symbolic and that government remains the property owners gendarme today. Government has only existed as a means of crushing and exploiting the masses, or defending those who do. He does admit that some organs of government have provided a standard of living, but that they do this to maintain their power over the people.

The government, or as some call it, the justiciary State, as moderator in the social struggle and the impartial administrator of the public interest, is a lie — an illusion, an utopia never achieved and never to be realised.

This idea of the government as impartial is not real. The idea that humans need a higher power to look to for answers is a lie. According to Malatesta, “the future of mankind is a happier one because the law governing it is milder. This law is solidarity.”

He states that the law above all that governs human relations is self preservation and preservation of the family. He paints a picture of the opposition between struggle and co-operation, and that co-operation is much more effective. It is our brains and working together that allowed us to gain the upper hand against other species. He ends chapter three with this:

Solidarity, that is the harmony of interests and of feelings, the coming together of individuals for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each, is the only environment in which Man can express his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the greatest possible wellbeing. This is the goal towards which human evolution advances; it is the higher principle which resolves all existing antagonisms, that would otherwise be insoluble, and results in the freedom of each not being limited by, but complemented — indeed finding the necessary raison d’être in — the freedom of others.

This passage really ignites the core of what anarchy is all about. It’s about achieving the greatest possible human feats. We anarchists recognize that co-operation is key, and with complete co-operation anything is possible. Our freedom does not come at the expense of others, but our freedoms complement each other. When we come together as a collective we can materially advance our interests in a way we just cannot do alone.

Chapter four broadly discusses the implications of solidarity and the benefit of co-operation of humanity. Malatesta writes of the way human abilities of co-operation were co-opted by hierarchy to increase efficiency. He writes of how the war of all against all distracts from the war of all against nature. We addressed this language in the first paragraph and are reminded how important our relationship to nature is for our theory.

He states that in an international world we are even more interconnected than before. He refers to this as a vast unconscious solidarity between people. The interconnectedness of the state and private property means that both need to be abolished, or the state would reintroduce class relations. He relates how this solidarity between people will allow us to address the needs and issues of the people, it will allow us to organize organically.

This society of free people, this society of friends is Anarchy.

In chapter five Malatesta gives a response to authoritarians that say that government would change its nature under communism.

We can answer that in the first place it is not true that once the social conditions are changed the nature and the role of government would change. Organ and function are inseparable terms. Take away from an organ its function and either the organ dies or the function is re-established. Put an army in a country in which there are neither reasons for, nor fear of, war, civil or external, and it will provoke war or, if it does not succeed in its intentions, it will collapse. A police force where there are no crimes to solve or criminals to apprehend, will invent both, or cease to exist.

Social structures, like other systems, perpetuate themselves. They will always seek to ensure their own existence. The state will create oppression where there is none. Crime is a social issue, it stems from the inability of a system to adequately provide for the people. Without a class to protect, the state would either cease to exist, or create one. We need a system that can provide for the people without a state.

In chapter six Malatesta broadly expands on whether government can have any positive effect on society. He discusses the history of government and the history of the struggle between liberty and authority, saying it is not about the relationship between society and the individual, or about increasing liberty.

But rather is it a question of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative of the few, which inevitably results in the oppression of everybody else.

This is not about giving one person freedom over another, but allowing the people to take the initiative to take direct action and control over their lives.

The freedom we want, for ourselves and for others, is not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom which in practice is inevitably translated into the oppression of the weak; but it is real freedom, possible freedom, which is the conscious community of interests, voluntary solidarity.

Freedom, equality, solidarity, they’re all connected. Malatesta ends the chapter talking about crime and what the real role of the police is, expanding on his earlier ideas.

Anyway, punitive laws are only concerned with exceptional, unusual occurrences. Daily life carries on beyond the reach of the codicil and is controlled, almost unconsciously, with the tacit and voluntary agreement of all, by a number of usages and customs which are much more important to social life than the Articles of the Penal Code, and better respected in spite of being completely free from any sanction other than the natural one of the disesteem in which those who violate them are held and the consequences that arise therefrom.

Here he argues that life is not controlled by the state and laws, but by an free agreement between the people. These social customs are much stronger than laws and are only enforced by popular support.

Malatesta starts chapter seven by dismissing questions about specifics of anarchist society based on not having knowledge of the future. He says that if people still ask these questions it is because we have failed to “explain to them what anarchism is about.” We cannot prescribe the future because we cannot represent everyone.

He states that the only real way to differentiate between different parties is their method. The method of solidarity and freedom represent coming together to make decisions. So that is how decisions will be made, together. Malatesta firmly believes that anarchism is inline with socialism, and we are inclined to agree.

Anarchy, in common with socialism, has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody.

In chapter eight Malatesta discusses questions about a transitionary state and correcting some more common misconceptions.

The abolition of authority means, the abolition of the monopoly of force and of influence; it means the abolition of that state of affairs for which social power, that is the combined forces of society, is made into the instrument of thought, the will and interests of a small number of individuals, who by means of the total social power, suppress, for their personal advantage and for their own ideas the freedom of the individual

He ends the chapter by quoting Bakunin discussing the actions of the International and other anarchist ideas.

The last chapter, chapter nine, is mostly a conclusion. Pointing to what will happen after a revolution that abolished private property. Here he sums up his points about organization and freedom.

The revolution, by abolishing government and private property, will not create forces that do not exist; but it will leave the way open for the development of all available forces and talents, will destroy every class with an interest in keeping the masses in a state of brutishness, and will ensure that everyone will be able to act and to influence according to his abilities, his enthusiasm and his interests.

He talks about how societal forces will coalesce around interested parties. How revolution is the only answer and socialism and anarchism must be realized immediately. He ends on a positive note, looking towards the revolutions of the future.

And if today we fall without compromising, we can be sure of victory tomorrow.

This short book is a cornerstone of anarchist thought and has influenced anarchists across centuries. It can contend as one of the best short reads on anarchism, and it forms the basis of the anarchist realism we are building.

From Malatesta we understand the principles of solidarity, equality, and freedom, and how they are interconnected. We understand the link between anarchism and socialism and some basic principles of social structures. We understand the necessity and reality of anarchy, and we now have a solid foundation on which to build. But there are some holes in it which we have to fix.

With our next posts we hope to mend those holes and build something that actually holds water.

link to the book: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

if you have thoughts or corrections you can leave a comment or email me.